Suggestion Single Hex Factions

[Grrwunhoooll Agaburry]

Im not seeing any salt anywhere, unless your gonna accuse me of something. I never said you specifically of spoke for the CIS or any faction. Despite my blunt way of going about things I am staying on topic and discussing ideas. Collaborating with other writers was something you said should happen as well too, yeah?

Allya Vi'Dreya

 

[Luca Donskoi]

If a Single Hex Faction is good at defending its own hex, while attacking others from afar, then they should be allowed too. While factions that are large and expansive in their influence, would be good at fielding much more, but have less capacity in the realistic terms of a battle.

Do not get me wrong, this is a very good suggestion, and please do come up with more ideas that could improve the map/PVP games that are currently ramping up in activity. However, I feel this is one thing that should not be changed.

Taking a step back here and looking at this again, I think Vora Kaar has possibly the best phrasing of this which I highlight in the quote above. And this is absolutely the truth, however as the rules are written to now, the Single Hex faction does not even have to worry about defending its own hex. And it is this that has brought this discussion up, just as it was in the past. I believe what certain writers would like to see come of this is a way that a Single Hex Faction loses its invulnerability in the moment it is swing at another faction. Fairness aside, it's only right for all writers on the board if every faction that is able to swing at another is also able to be swung at. It's the simple give and take.

It's very difficult to enjoy the site when you're getting attacked and not able to legitimately dish the same back. Just as I said previously, if someone were to swing at you and force you into a fight, you would absolutely swing back. It's simple nature with fight or flight. And this is likely where the root of the issue stems from. We just need to find a way that a single hex faction that is swinging at another can be able to be swung at in return without absolutely tipping tipping the tables of balance.

Perhaps an option can be that a single hex faction that initiates an invasion against another faction is vulnerable to be swung at in retaliation by the faction they are invading. The invasion would have to be announced at some point during the actually invasion and not after it has closed for judging. Obviously there is no such thing as a perfect fix or change, but we can try to at least make things better.

 

[Jsc]

Hypothetically speaking, if I was a single hex faction and got 'counter-invaded', and lost. I'd probably just create another single hex faction two weeks later and try again. But that's just me.

Mmm. That said. I doubt AoC will never, ever, ever, launch a single dominion or refuse all attempts at Discord chats about IC retribution. Lol. That's not really their style anyway.

Or, given that the CIS is what, 10 hexs away? At 3 Doms a month that's four months. Minus Rebellions. So, five months to launch and decide a capital Invasion. That's not too bad.

Meh.

2soon. Statistical outlier. Not an issue. Maybe later. Needs more Dakka. Carry on!

 

[Laira Darkhold]

In a single sentence, let there be chaos.

In significantly more sentences, This is a pointless discussion. Its not a bug, the faction isn't unbeatable, it just has one benefit your normal recourse doesn't work against. In war, you must adapt to new scenarios. You don't always get to dictate the rules your opponent must abide by.

In this case, the opposition has adapted, and now so to must your faction adapt to combat it, rather than changing the Site Rules to allow your faction to go forward with its tried and true strategy.

#ReturnOfTheTentacles or ally with a faction that is closer. Ally with a Galactic nomad faction. Try anything different than what you are used to.

As the great Bear Grylls says, Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

 

[The Red of Sinner]

Well there goes this can of worms.

 

[Allya Vi'Dreya]

Jsc Mmm, I mean you aren't wrong. The issue is, I never created this thread with that in mind. I brought up something I felt had the potential for exploit. I have no care what happens in the invasions going on currently. The story is still there for me.

I just feel sorry that for the first half we had some amazing ideas, people discussing, and debating, and it was good. I'll miss it.

As Laira said, it's pointless to continue this. Especially if its just going to get derailed by politics.

I tried! If anyone wants to continue the discussion, and debate, feel free to hit me up in DMS.

As for the rest of you, have a wonderful day!

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

I have allowed this thread to run for a day to gauge various people's reactions before replying.

The issue in question - single hex faction being immune to attack unless you are right next door - is an unintended consequence of the rules. When the invasion rules were originally written it was never envisioned that a faction would not be using Dominions to expand their territory or invade other factions not adjacent to them. This is the first time we've had this issue come up.

The staff team is going to review this state of affairs and see what needs to happen, if anything, to make this more fair. What we do not want is an overcompensation which might leave a new faction getting swarmed and eliminated before they can do anything. Likewise though we want to ensure the situation is fair for everyone.

Feel free to discuss or offer proposals, but keep posts on topic and productive.

 

[Allya Vi'Dreya]

Valiens Nantaris

Taking into consideration all the constructive feedback in the thread, I believe the best way to handle this:

If a one hex faction invades, it opens them up to a long range counter attack from the ones they invaded. If they lose this counter invasion, rather than being destroyed, they are forced to lose their hex, and relocate to another hex at least X spaces from their last one. If they don't invade, it means no one can counter invade and instead they would need to be right next to them.

I believe this provides the best way to protect new factions, or factions that have gotten hit hard, allowing them time to figure out their next steps. It also keeps an active single hex invasive faction from being wiped out in one fell swoop, and limits who can invade them. If you want to erase them, you have to be willing to fight hard for it, to remove any opportunity for escape.

However, this also gives an IC recourse for when a faction is attacked in this way. It allows for consequences, for the potential of loss, without it being something that is faction ending. I believe, it satisfies most needs.

 

[Haon Hafey]

I will mention this then let it go.

During the time when Grayson Imperium and the Alliance fought over Kuat, it had the Agents of Chaos in the same rebellion. The end result was that Agents of Chaos won and both the Alliance and the Imperium lost in this engagement. Due to this, Kuat could not be taken for over a full month due to this. What did Chaos do? Well...really nothing except I think place down a hex to day they exist as a major.

Point is, there should be retribution regardless if people like that spring up in...say a slave ship with people strapped to it on the outside in pods and force people to surrender. That in itself is an IC war crime.

I agree with their existence but a Mandate that does the following would do nicely.


"Retribution"
Pro:
"If the Major Faction is invaded and wins the invasion from Major Faction(s), it can select one hex aside from the Capital unless it is the last remaining hex and invade the Major Factions Territory in retaliation even if it does not border the Major Faction. Once per month use only."

Con:
"If the Major Faction fails in an invasion to which it was invaded or invades, it loses one hex of the Major Faction(s) choice aside from Capital Hex."

That seem fair? Not an admin but that seems fair to me.

 

[Fatty]

If there must be a change, one I can think of, is perhaps a Mandate called Head-Hunter, which gives them the unique ability to Invade Capital hexes, regardless of adjacenty, at the expense that they can invade no other hexes and are now vulnerable to losing their Capital Hex in the same way.

There might be other solutions, but I think this might be the easier thing to implement that works with player agency. Frustrated you can't hit a Capital that's far away? Take the Mandate and deal some damage to annoying capitals for a month or two.

 

[Visanj T'shkali]

If a single hex major does not launch aggressive invasions against another faction, it cannot be invaded. If, however, it launches an invasion against another Major, then that Major alone should be allowed to counter-invade. Don't start wars, you won't get invaded. You can still engage in faction threads, skirmishes, to enable activity. However, the single-hex faction can also do invasions, but they open the door to being counter-invaded from the object of those invasions if they do. We can call it "Don't Start None, Won't Be None".

If the single-faction hex loses, they cannot invade anyone again for 90 days. But they do not lose their hex either.

My $0.02

 

[Fatty]

Another potential solution may be to allow invasion of a Capital Hex if it is completely isolated, but this would be the extreme solution. A faction could prevent the targeting of their capital by Dominioning at least one other Hex, which would then require two invasions instead of one, and would in effect be simulating gaining territory next to a Capital. But like I said, this is the extreme solution if nothing else fits.

 

[Haon Hafey]

Updated after reading responses:


"Retribution"
Pro:
"If the Major Faction is invaded and wins the invasion from Major Faction(s), it can select one hex aside from the Capital unless it is the last remaining hex to which it can be invaded, and invade the Major Factions Territory in retaliation even if it does not border the Major Faction. Once per month use only."

Con:
"If the Major Faction fails in an invasion to which it was invaded or invades, it loses one hex of the Major Faction(s) choice aside from Capital Hex."

 

[Luca Donskoi]

Another potential solution may be to allow invasion of a Capital Hex if it is completely isolated, but this would be the extreme solution. A faction could prevent the targeting of their capital by Dominioning at least one other Hex, which would then require two invasions instead of one, and would in effect be simulating gaining territory next to a Capital. But like I said, this is the extreme solution if nothing else fits.

That's kind of how it works right now. Any hex of a major faction that is not a capital hex can be invaded at anytime. As the rules are currently written, however, a Major Faction's Capital Hex cannot be invaded unless invading faction occupies territory adjacent to that hex.

Valiens Nantaris , I think the common suggestion I've seen for a rule modification is this:

1. Each faction, upon creation, will name one planet as it's "Capital". Factions may not invade the hex containing the capital planet unless you have occupied a neighboring hex.

If a Single-Hex Major Faction were to launch and invasion, their single hex is open to a counter invasion from the faction they are invading. (Intent to counter invade must be declared prior to conclusion of initial invasion)

This make's it so that a Single-Hex Major Faction has Capital Hex immunity from a distant faction so long as they do not launch an invasion. If Single-Hex Major were to declare an invasion, they lose their Capital Hex immunity to the Major Faction in which they are invading only. Other majors would still not be able to target the Hex with an invasion. Once initial invasion has closed, that Single-Hex Major regains it's Capital Hex immunity leaving.

 

[KAR]

Why not just take away capitol hex immunity for one hex factions? If you choose to stay small you also stay vulnerable.

Or mandate every faction has to have at least two hexes?

No matter what happens AoC is super chill and I’m sure they are willing to write stories that are retribution for their IC actions. I’ve never seen them turn down a good story. So if it really is just a want if IC retribution’s I’m sure factions could just plan some with AoC.

 

[LT-137]

I'm going to be blunt.

I've been stewing on this for some time, as when I initially read this - I was getting the old UCM vibes after they got hit with successive Invasions and weren't very sporting. So, as you can imagine, this thread's timing wasn't ideal, especially so soon after a reported loss. Perception flavours someone's opinion, mainly online. It's something a lot of people tend to forget as their words can be taken out of context - and their intent is lost in what they perceive to be whinging.

The "map game" needed some tweaks for a while now, but all suggestions that weren't new mandate patches - have been self-serving to either a single person or Faction and don't really mesh into the grand scheme of things. Which was initially what I chalked this thread up to. However, the more and more I thought about it - it might be wise to chime in and say something - before an unfair stance towards Single Hex Major Faction's is implemented.

When broaching the "issue" of single-faction hexes - I tend to agree with what some folks have said, as there's quite a few methods of retaliation already in place. Sure, it isn't the standard consecutive Invasion thread that often happens. (For those that don't know, that's invading someone at the same time as being invaded. It's a pretty petty methodology, but let's be honest… we're all pettifogging in some fashion or another - whether we realize it or not.) But, there are ways to counteract that "unforeseen boon." They've been stated several times throughout this thread, so I won't regurgitate them.

If there was to be a fix for this supposed exploit, then perhaps a Mandate might be the best route. Whatever changes that may or may not come from this, shouldn't be towards any Major Faction that's merely using the tools that everyone else was provided, but in a new and innovative way. In an ideal world, it should be one hell of a risk to stretch a Faction's resources to slap a distant enemy. The logistics of supporting such a campaign would be astronomical, let alone the many other concerns.

With a portion of those details aside, as no one cares about such fluff, I think what Fatty mentioned earlier would be the best option that's been presented. If a Major Faction is trying to take out a Capital Hex - they should damn well have to face the consequences of their choices. Forgoing the ability to Invade Non-Capital Hexes is a start, but I also think that the idea should be fleshed out to also include the inability to submit more than Two Dominion's during those 60 days. (One every 30 days.)

While it may not be the most accurate representation of IC logistics, alongside the other details that should be to be taken into account, but a Major Faction trying to reach halfway across the Galaxy to slap an enemy Faction - shouldn't be allowed to continually expand their borders on the homefront. Allowing them to do so would simply be unrealistic, and heavily tips the balance in favour of whatever Faction took this Mandate. As it's unrestricted as to what Capital Hex, and I believe it should be that way - else it's highly unfair - the Faction with this Mandate has the ability and chance to change the political landscape of the Map.

In the end, it'd look something like this:

HEADHUNTER
Strength: This Major Faction gains the ability to Invade another Faction's Capital Hex, regardless of adjacency.
Weakness: The Major Faction cannot Invade Non-Capital Hexes, and is restricted to submitting One Dominion every Month.

There's probably a few more things that could be added to balance things out - but right now? That's all that I can really think of that'd be fair - in regards to the Mandate. Now, with Single-Hex factions? I believe that they should be allowed 30 days to Dominion a Hex that's immediately adjacent to their fallen Capital if they're the target of this Mandate, and they will lose to their attackers by chance. One wrong thread or an Invasion Loss shouldn't spell the end of an active or entire Major Faction. If that's become the case, then there's a few Major Faction's that need to take a hike as they've lost a few Invasions… It's bad sportsmanship and a terrible precedent to set.

If they lost, they'd have a small grace window to get back on their feet to try again - just like when Multi-cloud Factions lose their Capital Hex. So, in my eyes? I'd say that's pretty fair.

 

[Jsc]

K KAR - Capital hex immunity helped new factions compete with larger ones and kept the new guys from being squashed right out of the gate. As, there once was a time when well established major factions were huge and many newer factions ran the risk of being smashed early. Imagine a large Republic faction with 100 hexes meets a new Sith faction with just 3 hexes. It would be smart IC for the larger Republic to smash the smaller Sith right out of existence before they got a chance to grow. IC reasons, this kinda made sense. OOC, it was kinda roflstomping the little guys. This idea also made more sense in a world where large factions had hundreds of members and new factions had less than 10.

As to your other question. Two hexes doesn't really address the dynamic at play here. You're just throwing pennies at a begger. Lol. But keep at it. Every good idea helps.

 

[Rika]

I'd like to offer a very simple counter-strategy to what is currently being considered, provided that the map game is the only item at issue here:

1. Create a minor faction.
2. Fill it with people.
3. Go Major.
4. Choose hexes surrounding the now very vulnerable single-hex faction.
5. Invade until you win.
6. Profit?

If there is a strategy that can effectively kill a major faction available to the member base, then I would disagree that even a well-positioned single-hex Major Faction is truly invulnerable. The above suggestion isn't difficult to exploit either, especially considering another Major Faction could easily create a proxy Major for themselves, fill it with alt accounts, invade immediately after they've created this proxy, and then dismantle it as soon as they've taken out their opposition. Could they Galactic Nomad if you don't win the initial assault? Sure. But then you can wash, rinse, and repeat.

 

[Daiya]

If there must be a change, one I can think of, is perhaps a Mandate called Head-Hunter, which gives them the unique ability to Invade Capital hexes, regardless of adjacenty, at the expense that they can invade no other hexes and are now vulnerable to losing their Capital Hex in the same way.

I like this for a mandate, it makes it the most fair. If you want to hit a capital hex, you must commit to your own being vulnerable. If an IC explanation is necessary, then consider that all the resources a faction uses to guard its capital hex are now diverted to the offensive capabilities necessary to strike directly at a capital itself.

 

[Judah Lesan]

I have two thoughts I’m going to keep short.

1. Fortress Worlds mandate requires that one hex always remains vulnerable despite being able to extend immunity to 3 hexes. This means a 3 hex faction could only claim 2 as immune.

The existence of that mandate while a single hex faction can remain immune seems to create a potential problem.

2. Under previous rules before factions gained territory by hexes it was done by planets. You go major you get 3 planets and there was no 30 day invasion immunity.

So the easiest solution: All majors beginning with 3 hexes with 30 day invasion immunity solves the one hex issue that has been raised, and also deals with the fact we have a mandate on the board that seems to give a written signal that full immunity without consequence is not the intention.